Drone Strikes Debate

After the terror attack of September 11, the U.S. began using drones to help fight the war on “terrorist.” The use of drones has secured the safety of our country to a certain extent. People claim that drone strikes are useful weapons in war because it kills the enemy without putting soldiers in danger. According to the article “At Issue: Targeted Strikes” by Staff, P. states, “Proponents credit drone strikes with the killing of many of top commanders of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and argue that they are a legal form of self defense. ” The benefit of this is that U.S. soldiers do not have to step foot in unfriendly locations, where they will be exposing themselves to danger. The United States favors drone because “One advantage of drones is that they can be deployed for long periods

Most Americans are in favor of drone strikes. A 2013 survey suggests 69% of Republicans, 60% of Independents and 59% of Democrats support the use of drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen (ProCon). The next president of the United States will have to decide if our country will keep using drones and improve the drone program. It has been said that drone strikes are used as a “recruitment tool” for terrorist organizations such as the Taliban and the Islamic State (Pilkington and MacAskill). Even though most civilians in the Middle East hate drone strikes; the United States collaborates with local governments in the Middle East who gives us jurisdiction to carry out these strikes. For example in Pakistan where most drone strikes occur; they have decreased violence in that region. The Pakistani President even admitted to asking the US to conduct more drone strikes in his country (ProCon). If drones were not effective foreign government officials would not ask for more drone

Picture your dearest family member out in the battlefield, struggling for dear life. Only being supported by a jug of water and a rifle until a drone appears with medical supplies or reinforcements. Every year technology advances at an increasingly hypersonic pace. The world has gone from the use of bulky telephones to six-inch touch screens. Soon the world will come from using innocent lives to fight for our country to the use of drones in warfare. Thousands of lives each year are cast away in order to protect our country. Drones could be the answer to finding terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen and stop them before they attack. The United States should continue the use of drones in warfare.

“Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, US transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives” (Gerdau 1). These are the words of President Obama as he spoke on the effective use of the United States drone program. Drone operations have been in effect since our nation was targeted by al Qaeda in 2001. Anything that threatens American lives is undesirable; therefore, drone strikes against terrorists should continue to be utilized by the American government. In today’s society, our nation is threatened by foreign and domestic attacks from anti-American terrorist organizations. The government’s use of drones has drastically reduced this threat by decimating terrorist cells abroad.

The government side might object my perspective, arguing that the drone strikes is completely justify because this individual might not be mentally impaired and he or she has consented on their behavior, so the drone strikes are not considered as cruel and unusual. I do not agree with this objection. It is important to take an individualized consideration in the circumstances of each case to determine whether the punishment is excessive, contended by Justice Kennedy in Roper v. Simmons. By taking into individualized considerations, trials are required to discuss whether the punishment is excessive. For example, in our case, this person might be threatened and manipulated by another individual, making certain decision after subornation, or making

The general argument made by Natalie Dalziel in her 2014 article “Drone Strikes: Ethics and Strategy” is that U.S. drone strikes have many “strategic consequences” (6). More specifically, she argues that drone strikes “incite” terrorist attacks by “targeting the symptom of the problem rather than the cause” (Dalziel 6). She writes that U.S. drone strikes destabilize and “undermine the legitimacy of governments” where drone strikes occur by turning people to groups like al Qaeda “out of anger” over their government's failure to prevent drone strikes (Dalziel 5).  In addition, she writes that methods like the “signature strike and double-tap” increase the number of civilian casualties which leads to more “retaliation for the strikes” (Dalziel

America’s entire Drone Program takes up 1% of the entire annual military budget which is 5 billion dollars, this sounds like alot but its not when compared to the Manned Strike Program which roughly uses up 15 billion dollars of the annual budget.This is a 10 billion dollar difference. In 2014 the United States spent over 2.2 trillion dollars and since then it has gone up due to ground wars in Afghanistan,Syria, and Iraq this huge number could have been cut down if the United States used drone strikes more often. Although peace activists believe drone strikes mostly kill targets who are low vaule threats to the country. In 2012 it was reported there had been 500 militants armed out of these 500 militants, drone strikes successfully killed 35 including 12 civilians. According to the New America Foundation, from 2004 through 2012 only 49 militants were killed that was 2% of terrorists. Still these low value targets are still criminals and enemies, so it’s important to spend the money to stop them. If we allow ourselves to ignore the small threats, then we are allowing these people to kill or break many laws, after the defense program being over 2.2 trillion dollars, the best move would be using drone strikes to cut down the military budget.

The effectiveness of drones to kill terrorists is well documented. Over the last four years, the Obama administration has signed off on over 400 drone strikes. (Why Drones Work, 1) Many senior terrorist leaders have been killed and many terrorist groups have been denied access to their sanctuaries. These drone strikes have been relatively inexpensive in cost of materials, caused low numbers of civilian casualties, and were risk-free for United States forces. (Why Drones Work, 1) However, even though the use of drone strikes has these proven advantages, several disadvantages are

Terrorist attacks are designed to promote fear into all witnesses and victims of their attacks. Drones put that same fear into all leaders of terrorist organizations. Former President Obama once said this on drone strikes, “We’ve seen violent extremists pushed out of their sanctuaries. We’ve struck major blows against al Qaeda leadership as well as the Taliban’s. They’re worried about their own safety. It’s harder for them to move, it’s harder for them to train and to plot and to attack. All of that makes America safer” (Williams). Even through fear, it saves Americans and civilian lives in the area from attacks from these blood-thirsty organizations. Furthermore, having the capability to send drones to attack leaders saves the lives of the

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

After 9/11, the main enemy of the United States has been terrorist networks, and not the massive countries with massive weapons to take out the United States. Invading the countries with terrorism to capture small terrorist groups, would cause the United States a major issue. Those reasons are pricey conflict, responsibility for destroying governments, many civilian lives lost, more power to the enemies of the United States, US military deaths, and other consequences that will hurt the country. America's attempt to destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan by taking over and living in the country, resulted in a war that has been going on for 12 years. “Using drone strikes against terrorists abroad allows the United States to achieve it's goals at a fraction of the cost of an invasion in money, manpower, and lives.” (Drones-ProCon.org). This means that America will be saving money which can be used to buy more weapons and artillery to make the United States army even more stronger. This also allows the more manpower because more money equals more people would want to join to help support their families. Also, the more drone strikes used will cost less human lives because people are not going into the field of battle and risking their lives.

When United States President George W. Bush was in office he oversaw less than 50 drone strikes. In more recent years President Barrack Obama has signed off on close to 400 drone strikes throughout his presidency. (Byman) The question if the use of drones should be prohibited has been a major question in recent years. Drones are and essentially part of not only military use, but also for the use of farmers and some law enforcement agencies. Drones are a very effective way to get multiple tasks done, and when used the right way can be highly effective

Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties. The CIA oversees drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, but US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. According to a tally by the nonpartisan New America Foundation, since 2004 there have been more than 260 US drone strikes in Pakistan, which the foundation estimates killed between 1,600 and 2,500 people. Not everyone feels comfortable with all this. Critics say that the legal and

To provide some background on the subject of drone warfare, a drone, sometimes called an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), are remotely piloted aircraft that are used for covalence and targeted attacks. Drone strikes were first used under the Bush administration in 2004, but increased exponentially under the Obama administration. Drone strikes have consistently been used to fight the United States war on terror against the Taliban and Al Qaida terrorist groups, Which have taken refuge in Pakistan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. More often than not, this type of warfare involves fighting an enemy that is indistinguishable from the civilian population. Drones are useful in these types of situation because they are able to circle a target area for up to 18

Besides killing terrorists, drone strikes can effectively reduce communication and training activities within terrorism group. Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have to avoid using electronic gadgets to transfer information in order not to attract drones. They can’t gather in large number for recruitment either for the very same reason. Otherwise, a drone strike can easily detect and target the entire group. Thus, leaders cannot give orders to their squad, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible. It's proved in a sheet found among Jihadists in Mali that advised militants to “maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts” and “avoid gathering in open areas.” Drones have turned terrorism’s command and training structures into handicap,